Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[Busybody]

This is such an annoying cliche thing to say. We don't know how the world would be if men could get pregnant. Stop throwing around generalities and acting like a victim because of your gender.

wow

a rational person on LIT

SHOCKER

 

[Phelia]

The rest of the Western world sits back with their mouths open when we look at American politics. It's why I find it so entertaining.

Idiocy and anti-science is a global endemic, but there is something about the American dog and pony shows that's just so watchable! Heard something funny - "Canadians watch American politics like Americans watch the Jersey Shore."

I really don't think there is anything funny about it. It's fucking sad.

They want corporate protection but they don;t want corporate responsibility. It's fuck sad.

No, what's fucking sad is that they're probably going to win.

I'm ok with that because I don't care much for bacon.

It is my BELIEF that your patronage of Taco Bell disqualifies you from having an opinion on food. TRUMPED!

Religious beliefs and the right of their "free exercise" ARE more important than most other individually held beliefs for the very SAME reason that women's reproductive rights are important; they are both codified and protected by law.

Religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment and women's reproductive rights are protected by statutory law and various court decisions.

Respondents in this case believe that a provision of the Affordable Care Act is compelling them by force of law to perform a specific act contrary to their religious beliefs and in violation of First Amendment protection. Whenever two different laws appear to act in conflict with each other and where that conflict arguably results in a specific harm or burden to an individual, it is appropriate for the aggrieved individual to take the matter to court for a legal resolution.

I don't believe Hobby Lobby will win this dispute because I believe they are asserting their religious protection rights under the First Amendment far too broadly. They are simply wrong on the legal merits.

But the matter of free exercise of religion as a moral principle and legal right should not be minimized and the parameters of that right are appropriately brought before courts of law whenever they need clarification or enforcement.

I don't think we're quite on the same page, but I am happy to admit that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that religious beliefs should be afforded any special protection above and beyond those given to secular beliefs. I don't even really believe this is in conflict with the First Amendment as its definition of religion has been widely debated and examined, first by the original framers and subsequently by the courts. By and large, the government resists on judging the the merit, conviction, or validity of anything claiming to be a religious belief, so pragmatically, there's really no difference anyway. The only legal instance in which there's a clear(ish) line is for tax-exempt status (which I feel should be scrapped, by the way).

The problem is that their belief is demonstrably and scientifically incorrect. I am not saying that Hobby Lobby had no right to bring their perceived moral and legal conflict to the courts, but it should never have escalated to the Supreme Court. They don't want to support abortion because of their beliefs, fine. The contraceptives in question are NOT abortifacients and should be considered virtually indistinguishable from the other contraceptives Hobby Lobby has NOT objected to. It's cut and dry. The only reason it's gone this far is a deeply-entrenched societal reverence for religion, particularly Christianity. I think my example of a Scientologist-owned business is a fair analog. Do you honestly think we'd see the Justices arguing that case? It's got to stop. Religions do not deserve special treatment.

I fervently hope that Hobby Lobby will lose, but I am not as confident as you. The court's discussion of the "legal merits" has been an absolute train wreck as yet. The Alito/Scalia/Roberts/Kennedy quotes I've been reading make me sick to my stomach.

its NOT about BC

they PAY for 22 out of 27 methods

its about AFTER fucking BC


huge difference

Would you like to explain how IUDs are "AFTER fucking BC"? Because they're not, and it would be completely idiotic to claim otherwise. I understand the case just fine, thanks. I'm sorry that you don't.

Regardless, the point I am making in this thread is that none of the four contraceptive methods objected to are "abortifacients" regardless of how much someone might BELIEVE they are.

Please kindly fuck off until you have something relevant to say.

 

[Busybody]

Please kindly fuck off until you have something relevant to say.

But then I'll be GONE forever, Shirley you don't want THAT

 

[Lorilei]

This is such an annoying cliche thing to say. We don't know how the world would be if men could get pregnant. Stop throwing around generalities and acting like a victim because of your gender.

In what way did I act like a victim? Seems like I touched a nerve. Let me guess; you're a man who's been pregnant?

 

[bronzeage]

Religious beliefs and the right of their "free exercise" ARE more important than most other individually held beliefs for the very SAME reason that women's reproductive rights are important; they are both codified and protected by law.

Religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment and women's reproductive rights are protected by statutory law and various court decisions.

Respondents in this case believe that a provision of the Affordable Care Act is compelling them by force of law to perform a specific act contrary to their religious beliefs and in violation of First Amendment protection. Whenever two different laws appear to act in conflict with each other and where that conflict arguably results in a specific harm or burden to an individual, it is appropriate for the aggrieved individual to take the matter to court for a legal resolution.

I don't believe Hobby Lobby will win this dispute because I believe they are asserting their religious protection rights under the First Amendment far too broadly. They are simply wrong on the legal merits.

But the matter of free exercise of religion as a moral principle and legal right should not be minimized and the parameters of that right are appropriately brought before courts of law whenever they need clarification or enforcement.

What Hobby Lobby really wants is "conscientious objector" status which will exempt them from their legal obligations. In this case, they want an exemption which will allow them to treat their employees differently than other companies. There has always been a line drawn when a CO's beliefs affect another person. This is especially true when another person's safety is involved. A person's religious beliefs do not permit them to deny medical treatment to their children, just as their private property is subject to building codes.

 

[Lorilei]

What Hobby Lobby really wants is "conscientious objector" status which will exempt them from their legal obligations. In this case, they want an exemption which will allow them to treat their employees differently than other companies. There has always been a line drawn when a CO's beliefs affect another person. This is especially true when another person's safety is involved. A person's religious beliefs do not permit them to deny medical treatment to their children, just as their private property is subject to building codes.

Not to mention, corporations are not people and don't have the same rights as individuals. Corporations are not guaranteed the right to free practice of religion. And the US isn't a theocracy, though if companies like Hobby Lobby get their way, we're getting dangerously close.

 

[Phelia]

A post you didn't see if, like many people with a low tolerance for drivel, you have Amicus on Ignore:

Oh, that is rich. Thank you for surfacing it. My eyes go all crossed when I stumble into an amicus thread, so I miss out on some of the most delicious crazy.

Gotta love a libertarian. Government should take their hands off of everything except for a woman's fallopian tubes.

If men could get pregnant, this wouldn't even be an issue.

What a lovely world! I'm imagining AJ now, skin glowing, with an infant latched to his protrudent nipple and nursing from his heaving post-baby-bosom.

This is such an annoying cliche thing to say. We don't know how the world would be if men could get pregnant. Stop throwing around generalities and acting like a victim because of your gender.

Annnnnd you're a dude.

I thought church and state are separate? Contraception is a church issue, paying for it isn't.

That's just the way I see it.

Can you please elaborate a bit? I honestly can't tell which position you're taking. What do you mean that contraception is a church issue?

 

[Tryharder62]

Don't people have their own truths? Your truth may not be the same as mine.

 

[Phelia]

But then I'll be GONE forever, Shirley you don't want THAT

You'd rather leave forever than start saying things that are true and not made up? It's not that hard! Let's practice. Do you believe that religious beliefs deserve more protection under the law than secular beliefs?

It's a one word answer, yes or no (though you can elaborate if you wish), and it's just your opinion, so you don't even have to worry about getting any of the facts wrong! You can do it!

What Hobby Lobby really wants is "conscientious objector" status which will exempt them from their legal obligations. In this case, they want an exemption which will allow them to treat their employees differently than other companies. There has always been a line drawn when a CO's beliefs affect another person. This is especially true when another person's safety is involved. A person's religious beliefs do not permit them to deny medical treatment to their children, just as their private property is subject to building codes.

The other issue is that if they have an objection, why don't they just forgo providing healthcare altogether and pay the penalty? It's perfectly legal and absolves them from having to subsidize any form of birth control.

But no. They have a "moral obligation" to provide coverage for their employees. It's all bullshit. I'm sure everything is being paid for by some religious right idiot brigade who could not give less of a fuck about employees and just wants to crack open the door to a full blown legislative shit-show attempt to rip apart the ACA. Fuck 'em all.

 

[Lorilei]

I thought church and state are separate? Contraception is a church issue, paying for it isn't.

That's just the way I see it.

What? How is contraception a "church issue"?

 

[smallgirl]

Oh, that is rich. Thank you for surfacing it. My eyes go all crossed when I stumble into an amicus thread, so I miss out on some of the most delicious crazy.

Gotta love a libertarian. Government should take their hands off of everything except for a woman's fallopian tubes.



What a lovely world! I'm imagining AJ now, skin glowing, with an infant latched to his protrudent nipple and nursing from his heaving post-baby-bosom.



Annnnnd you're a dude.



Can you please elaborate a bit? I honestly can't tell which position you're taking. What do you mean that contraception is a church issue?

I see contraception as a medicine like any other...to me(IMO). The government has made it mandatory to be covered, so companies religious views should not come into play.

The churches opinion on contraception should not be part of the issue, meaning an employer should not be able to pull the "this is against my religion so I shouldn't have to pay" card. To me, that is just bull shit. Does that mean if I go to church I don't have to work on Sunday because it is against my religion? That I believe the 7th day is to be a day of rest? IMO it is the same thing. I would probably be fired if I refused to work on Sunday, and I bet Hobby Lobby would fire me as well for that.

I think every employer should have to cover contraceptives, regardless of how they feel about it religiously.

 

[Tryharder62]

So you'd rather them provide their employees no coverage?

 

[Phelia]

Don't people have their own truths? Your truth may not be the same as mine.

No. "Truth" is a word that we use to refer to things that agree with facts and reality. If you fell the need to call something "your truth", then it's probably because it's not true, and you are misusing the word. You can do whatever you want, but you absolutely cannot use "your truth" to restrict my rights.

 

[oggbashan]

Sir Francis Bacon

Essays or Counsels

I. Of Truth.

WHAT is Truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer. Certainly there be that delight in giddiness, and count it a bondage to fix a belief; affecting free-will in thinking, as well as in acting. And though the sects of philosophers of that kind be gone, yet there remain certain discoursing wits which are of the same veins, though there be not so much blood in them as was in those of the ancients. But it is not only the difficulty and labour which men take in finding out of truth; nor again that when it is found it imposeth upon men's thoughts; that doth bring lies in favour; but a natural though corrupt love of the lie itself. One of the later school of the Grecians examineth the matter, and is at a stand to think what should be in it, that men should love lies, where neither they make for pleasure, as with poets, nor for advantage, as with the merchant; but for the lie's sake. But I cannot tell: this same truth is a naked and open day-light, that doth not shew the masks and mummeries and triumphs of the world, half so stately and daintily as candle-lights. Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl, that sheweth best by day; but it will not rise to the price of a diamond or carbuncle, that sheweth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure. Doth any man doubt, that if there were taken out of men's minds vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds of a number of men poor shrunken things, full of melancholy and indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves? One of the Fathers, in great severity, called poesy vinum daemonum, because it filleth the imagination; and yet it is but with the shadow of a lie. But it is not the lie that passeth through the mind, but the lie that sinketh in and settleth in it, that doth the hurt; such as we spake of before. But howsoever these things are thus in men's depraved judgments and affections, yet truth, which only doth judge itself, teacheth that the Inquiry of truth, which is the love-making or wooing of it, the knowledge of truth, which is the presence of it, and the belief of truth, which is the enjoying of it, is the sovereign good of human nature. The first creature of God, in the works of the days, was the light of the sense; the last was the light of reason; and his sabbath work ever since, is the illumination of his Spirit. First he breathed light upon the face of the matter or chaos; then he breathed light into the face of man; and still he breatheth and inspireth light into the face of his chosen. The poet that beautified the sect that was otherwise inferior to the rest, saith yet excellently well: It is a pleasure to stand upon the shore, and to see ships tossed upon the sea; a pleasure to stand in the window of a castle, and to see a battle and the adventures thereof below: but no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of Truth, (a hill not to be commanded, and where the air is always clear and serene,) and to see the errors, and wanderings, and mists, and tempests, in the vale below; so always that this prospect be with pity, and not with swelling or pride. Certainly, it is heaven upon earth, to have a man's mind move in charity, rest in providence, and turn upon the poles of truth.
To pass from theological and philosophical truth, to the truth of civil business; it will be acknowledged even by those that practise it not, that clear and round dealing is the honour of man's nature; and that mixture of falsehood is like allay in coin of gold and silver, which may make the metal work the better, but it embaseth it. For these winding and crooked courses are the goings of the serpent; which goeth basely upon the belly, and not upon the feet. There is no vice that doth so cover a man with shame as to be found false and perfidious. And therefore Montaigne saith prettily, when he inquired the reason, why the word of the lie should be such a disgrace and such an odious charge? Saith he, If it be well weighed, to say that a man lieth, is as much to say, as that he is brave towards God and a coward towards men. For a lie faces God, and shrinks from man. Surely the wickedness of falsehood and breach of faith cannot possibly be so highly expressed, as in that it shall be the last peal to call the judgments of God upon the generations of men; it being foretold, that when Christ cometh, he shall not find faith upon the earth.
[@ Bacon, Works VI, 377-379]

 

[smallgirl]

I just don't see how companies can yell "it's against my religion to cover contraceptives". I am pretty sure not every one working at these companies sees contraception as wrong, so why should they not access to it like I would because my company feels differently? I see Hobby Lobby's issue with contraception as a religious issue and having no place in the law.

Maybe I did not say it well, I am writing a research paper in between being on Lit...sorry folks. When a company yells it is against their religious beliefs, I see the line keeping church and state getting blurred and crossed.

They should have to cover contraceptives...just like the law says.

 

[Lorilei]

What? How is contraception a "church issue"?

I see contraception as a medicine like any other...to me(IMO). The government has made it mandatory to be covered, so companies religious views should not come into play.

The churches opinion on contraception should not be part of the issue, meaning an employer should not be able to pull the "this is against my religion so I shouldn't have to pay" card. To me, that is just bull shit. Does that mean if I go to church I don't have to work on Sunday because it is against my religion? That I believe the 7th day is to be a day of rest? IMO it is the same thing. I would probably be fired if I refused to work on Sunday, and I bet Hobby Lobby would fire me as well for that.

I think every employer should have to cover contraceptives, regardless of how they feel about it religiously.

Oops, never mind. Thanks for explaining what you meant.

 

[GermanGoddess]

It's kind of hilarious that because I say something in favor of men, I must be a dude. It wasn't even really in favor of men; I'm just bored with that tired cliche that really has no basis in anything. Imagine if men could get pregnant. Okay. Everything would be completely different, so I can't really make assumptions about how this specific issue would be any different.

Sorry to disappoint. I happen to like the government being out of my sex life, which means paying for my own birth control. Not to mention I don't expect others to pay for my choices or want to pay for theirs.

Must be a dude if I disagree with the feminists voices though.

 

[smallgirl]

Oops, never mind. Thanks for explaining what you meant.

No, I'm sorry not explaining myself better.

I have 15 sources going through my head and covering my desk and being on Lit too. multitasking at its best.

 

[Lorilei]

I just don't see how companies can yell "it's against my religion to cover contraceptives". I am pretty sure not every one working at these companies sees contraception as wrong, so why should they not access to it like I would because my company feels differently? I see Hobby Lobby's issue with contraception as a religious issue and having no place in the law.

Maybe I did not say it well, I am writing a research paper in between being on Lit...sorry folks. When a company yells it is against their religious beliefs, I see the line keeping church and state getting blurred and crossed.

They should have to cover contraceptives...just like the law says.

Exactly. It might be against their religion to use contraceptives, but that doesn't give them the right to enforce those beliefs on their employees, anymore than they could force their employees to attend church every Sunday.

 

[Lorilei]

No, I'm sorry not explaining myself better.

I have 15 sources going through my head and covering my desk and being on Lit too. multitasking at its best.

I totally understand.

 

[Phelia]

I see contraception as a medicine like any other...to me(IMO). The government has made it mandatory to be covered, so companies religious views should not come into play.

The churches opinion on contraception should not be part of the issue, meaning an employer should not be able to pull the "this is against my religion so I shouldn't have to pay" card. To me, that is just bull shit. Does that mean if I go to church I don't have to work on Sunday because it is against my religion? That I believe the 7th day is to be a day of rest? IMO it is the same thing. I would probably be fired if I refused to work on Sunday, and I bet Hobby Lobby would fire me as well for that.

I think every employer should have to cover contraceptives, regardless of how they feel about it religiously.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. I agree with you. That said, I do recognize the importance of protecting an individual's right to their beliefs and convictions, religious or not. It's not always cut and dry, but in this instance, I think it is.

Interestingly enough, Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays because of their owners' religious leanings.

So you'd rather them provide their employees no coverage?

Please do not twist my words. Obviously I would prefer that they provided coverage for their employees in accordance with the ACA. They're the ones trying to chip away at the coverage they make available to their employees, which is unconscionable.

But yes, I'd rather they take away coverage from all of their employees (who would still be able to receive coverage thanks to the ACA) than disregard women's rights, embarrass the country, and waste countless thousands of dollars on this idiotic court case.

 

[smallgirl]

Okay, thank you for clarifying. I agree with you. That said, I do recognize the importance of protecting an individual's right to their beliefs and convictions, religious or not. It's not always cut and dry, but in this instance, I think it is.

Interestingly enough, Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays because of their owners' religious leanings.



Please do not twist my words. Obviously I would prefer that they provided coverage for their employees in accordance with the ACA. They're the ones trying to chip away at the coverage they make available to their employees, which is unconscionable.

But yes, I'd rather they take away coverage from all of their employees (who would still be able to receive coverage thanks to the ACA) than disregard women's rights, embarrass the country, and waste countless thousands of dollars on this idiotic court case.

Now, see...I did not know that, but this isn't a store I shop at. Good for them if that is how they choose to run their business.

But take Wal-Mart for example, or Lowes, or Home Depot. What do you think they would say if I said I need Sundays off? I'd be laughed all the way to the door on the way to being fired.

I see mandatory contraception coverage as a legal thing, since it is part of the law. They are blurring the lines here on what our Constitution is built on. IMO anyway.

 

[smallgirl]

I totally understand.

<sigh> I need a break every few!

 

[GermanGoddess]

I see contraception as a medicine like any other...to me(IMO). The government has made it mandatory to be covered, so companies religious views should not come into play.

The churches opinion on contraception should not be part of the issue, meaning an employer should not be able to pull the "this is against my religion so I shouldn't have to pay" card. To me, that is just bull shit. Does that mean if I go to church I don't have to work on Sunday because it is against my religion? That I believe the 7th day is to be a day of rest? IMO it is the same thing. I would probably be fired if I refused to work on Sunday, and I bet Hobby Lobby would fire me as well for that.

I think every employer should have to cover contraceptives, regardless of how they feel about it religiously.

Sherbert v. Verner

 

[Lorilei]

And it’s worth noting that before Obama came along, Hobby Lobby was voluntarily providing coverage for the forms of contraceptive that they (and Erickson) now erroneously call abortifacient.

But notice, he acknowledges that the reason Hobby Lobby et al. are asserting new rights is to trump others they don’t agree with. They only need the new rights in order to deny service to customers they don’t like, and protections to employees (current or prospective) when they disagree with them.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/26/eri...nt/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow